Loaded Six String:If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.

Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.

fredklein:Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.

Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.

sorry, but its true. the one consistent factor in all of these threads is that the people ignoring that martin could have legitimately felt threatened also are, to the last ITG, people who would also claim the right to self-defense to shoot a black man pursuing them in the same aggressive manner that martin was pursued by zimmerman.

/if in doubt, shoot the negro. also, its always his fault. thats pretty much the takeaway from all these ardent zimmerman defenders the last few months

ChaosStar:fredklein: ChaosStar: You could go around all day punching people and no one could do anything to you?Except maybe call the cops and have you arrested for battery?

But that's the whole point- Zimmerman didn't call the cops and let them handle it. He chased Trayvon on his own. Thank you for agreeing he was wrong to do so.

No, he followed Trayvon

Chased: "To follow rapidly in order to catch or overtake; pursue: chased the thief."

and reported what he saw to the dispatcher, just like the dispatcher asked him to do when he told Zimmerman to "let me know if he does anything".

"We don't need you to do that".Notice I never said anywhere in your quote I wouldn't do the same thing? That's because I would.With a hand not very far from my concealed Glock 23, should Mr serial puncher decide to turn and escalate the situation to a level requiring deadly force.

Funny, because in this hypothetical scenario, You are Trayvon. And you just said that you'd be prepared to defend yourself, with lethal force, if Zimmerman 'decide[d] to turn and escalate the situation'. And Zimmerman's story is he 'turned to go back to his truck'. This ties in nicely with my theory that Trayvon was hiding, Zimmerman passed him, and when Zimmerman turned to go back to his truck, Trayvon thought Zimmerman had found him and was turning and coming back to get him, and so defended himself.

fredklein:Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.

Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.

To play Devil's Advocate, so does increased testosterone levels attributed to male adolescence/puberty. I'm hesitant to attribute either to the parties involved because it's a crapshoot and speculation.

ChaosStar:fredklein: Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.

Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.

Oh manI'm gonna need to see a citation for that one sparky

The only studies I've seen were from Texas and Florida and both showed that much less likely to commit a crime than the general population. Here are the Florida stats for revocation:

ChaosStar:fredklein: Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.

Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.

Oh manI'm gonna need to see a citation for that one sparky

Well, try looking up how many men with guns/bombs/weapons rob banks. Then look up how many unarmed men rob banks.Then look up how many muggings are committed by an armed man, and how many by an unarmed man.Then look up how many fights are started by muscular men (hey-muscles are weapons, too!), and how many are started by 90-pound weaklings.

Face it, having a weapon makes people more powerful than those who have no weapon. And having power changes how you think, and changes your actions.

Trayvon Martin had every right to confront his stalker. Zimmerman had every right to follow Trayvon. Unfortunately, they didn't use words in the confrontation, but decided to escalate into fisticuffs, and then shooticuffs. I expect a teenager to react to confrontation in a stupid manner. I expect a gun owner to use his gun if he is getting assaulted.

All in all, this happened because two people failed to act civilized. Now one is dead, and the other's life is ruined. Unfortunately, every farktard with an unrelated agenda managed to hook their wagon to one side or the other, and used these two assbags as posterboys for their side.

No, Zimm doesn't represent a responsible gun owner. No, Trayvon wasn't a choirboy. Shame a kid died, I don't think he deserved to, but when you start punching people with guns, you tend to get more than you deserve.

Shaddup:Gyrfalcon: Wow, nothing seems to mess people up as much as "stand your ground" as "first aggressor." It's not even that hard. There's one other element people are leaving out. If you are the first aggressor and you disengage but your (by now pissed off) opponent keeps escalating, you can use deadly force if necessary....BUT you, as the primary aggressor have to have made it clear by your actions that you have disengaged or otherwise attempted to terminate the altercation and the other person continued to escalate despite your best efforts to do so.

So if you start a fight and the other person begins to beat the crap out of you, that's not sufficient for you to pull out your gun and kill him. In fact, it's not even enough for you to let them win for a while and then kill them. If you were the one who actually started the fight, then you have to make it clear by your actions you WANT TO STOP. Unlike self-defense, where there may or may not be a duty to reasonably retreat to a place of safety; if you are the "first aggressor" before you get to resort to lethal force, you HAVE to retreat.

My Crim Pro professor explained it thusly: It's almost as if you have to completely disengage, go inside, and force the other person to start another complete assault against you before you get to use lethal force. If you start something, the burden is on you to stop it. Which is why Zimmerman is facing a murder charge.

THANK YOU.

For what? The above scenerio does not apply. Zimmerman didnt assault Martin, get his ass kicked, and then and then shoot Martin..

I mean, unless one asserts that following Martin IS assault. Now, I will admit that i have seen that here as a justification to assault Zimmerman.

fredklein:ChaosStar: fredklein: ChaosStar: You could go around all day punching people and no one could do anything to you?Except maybe call the cops and have you arrested for battery?

But that's the whole point- Zimmerman didn't call the cops and let them handle it. He chased Trayvon on his own. Thank you for agreeing he was wrong to do so.

No, he followed Trayvon

Chased: "To follow rapidly in order to catch or overtake; pursue: chased the thief."

and reported what he saw to the dispatcher, just like the dispatcher asked him to do when he told Zimmerman to "let me know if he does anything".

"We don't need you to do that".

Notice I never said anywhere in your quote I wouldn't do the same thing? That's because I would.With a hand not very far from my concealed Glock 23, should Mr serial puncher decide to turn and escalate the situation to a level requiring deadly force.

Funny, because in this hypothetical scenario, You are Trayvon. And you just said that you'd be prepared to defend yourself, with lethal force, if Zimmerman 'decide[d] to turn and escalate the situation'. And Zimmerman's story is he 'turned to go back to his truck'. This ties in nicely with my theory that Trayvon was hiding, Zimmerman passed him, and when Zimmerman turned to go back to his truck, Trayvon thought Zimmerman had found him and was turning and coming back to get him, and so defended himself.

See the bold up there? "catch" "overtake", these are two key words. Since Zimmerman wasn't running very fast, and in fact going by his breathing on the phone wasn't running at all, he wasn't "chasing" Martin.

Yep, and after the dispatcher told him that, he stopped.

If you're going to quote me, quote the whole thing, you left out " to a level requiring deadly force"Even if your latter scenario was the case, which it's not, Travyon didn't have the grounds to use DEADLY FORCE which is what pounding someone's head into the pavement and trying to take their gun to use it against them is considered. Remember that reasonable means of retreat we have pointed out to you at least six times now? Yeah, that's kinda important, especially when the person you're trying to paint as the victim is on top of the other person pummeling them.

redmid17:ChaosStar: fredklein: Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.

Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.

Oh manI'm gonna need to see a citation for that one sparky

The only studies I've seen were from Texas and Florida and both showed that much less likely to commit a crime than the general population. Here are the Florida stats for revocation:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 521x634]

Seems to me that 168 out of 2 million isn't a bad ratio.

It's a shame that non-violent felonies can have your license revoked as well. Bouncing a check or getting caught with marijuana shouldn't revoke your right to own and carry a weapon (again, be it a pistol, knife, sword, kubotan, etc.)

fredklein:ChaosStar: fredklein: Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.

Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.

Oh manI'm gonna need to see a citation for that one sparky

Well, try looking up how many men with guns/bombs/weapons rob banks. Then look up how many unarmed men rob banks.Then look up how many muggings are committed by an armed man, and how many by an unarmed man.Then look up how many fights are started by muscular men (hey-muscles are weapons, too!), and how many are started by 90-pound weaklings.

Face it, having a weapon makes people more powerful than those who have no weapon. And having power changes how you think, and changes your actions.

One might want to distinguish between someone lawfully carrying a weapon and one carrying a weapon unlawfully.

fredklein:ChaosStar: fredklein: Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.

Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.

Oh manI'm gonna need to see a citation for that one sparky

Well, try looking up how many men with guns/bombs/weapons rob banks. Then look up how many unarmed men rob banks.Then look up how many muggings are committed by an armed man, and how many by an unarmed man.Then look up how many fights are started by muscular men (hey-muscles are weapons, too!), and how many are started by 90-pound weaklings.

Face it, having a weapon makes people more powerful than those who have no weapon. And having power changes how you think, and changes your actions.

gimmegimme:jaytkay: Gun "rights" people are gonna be bummed if Zimmerman is convicted.

They dream day and night of shooting some dark-hued "bad guy".

Stop being unfair to Responsible Gun Owners™.

[img.fark.net image 275x345]

I am sorry to say this is largely true.

I am a gun owner, but also one that was once involved in a very publicized self-defense shooting. Afterward, total strangers who recognized me from the news, even a random waiter in a restaurant, went on about how cool it would be to shoot someone and 'get away with it'. The idiot waiter even kept excitedly asking shiat like how it felt to actually kill someone, both giddy and then with a wistful look on his face. I was not sure which one made me want to cock punch him more.

It actually seems to be a common fantasy for a particularly offensively immature brand of loser in one of the mall ninja/itg/left behind/turner diary/rahowa type of personalities, if the morons seeking me out were any indication. at least none asked for an autograph. I even got mailed an invitation to join an exclusive shooting club with a normally several year wait list. I declined. Never had much use for gun culture/shooting sports after that, though i still keep firearms around i don't enjoy them as a sport anymore. not because i had to use them against people, just because the redneck morons at the range offend me now.

fredklein:ChaosStar: fredklein: Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.

Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.

Oh manI'm gonna need to see a citation for that one sparky

Well, try looking up how many men with guns/bombs/weapons rob banks. Then look up how many unarmed men rob banks.Then look up how many muggings are committed by an armed man, and how many by an unarmed man.Then look up how many fights are started by muscular men (hey-muscles are weapons, too!), and how many are started by 90-pound weaklings.

Face it, having a weapon makes people more powerful than those who have no weapon. And having power changes how you think, and changes your actions.

Look up how many people own firearms or have a concealed weapons license vs. how many violent crimes are committed. I think you're skewing the statistics in your favor given your wording.

The 'Not Guilty' verdict isn't going to be anywhere near as awesome as Zimmerman suing the state and or Martin's grandmother. I'd probably go after the state, probably not much to be made off of welfare checks.

Loaded Six String:redmid17: ChaosStar: fredklein: Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.

Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.

Oh manI'm gonna need to see a citation for that one sparky

The only studies I've seen were from Texas and Florida and both showed that much less likely to commit a crime than the general population. Here are the Florida stats for revocation:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 521x634]

Seems to me that 168 out of 2 million isn't a bad ratio.

It's a shame that non-violent felonies can have your license revoked as well. Bouncing a check or getting caught with marijuana shouldn't revoke your right to own and carry a weapon (again, be it a pistol, knife, sword, kubotan, etc.)

Personally I think outlawing weed is stupid, but the people issuing CCWs are kind of hand tied by drug possession laws. Hell if you use weed, FFLs are supposed to sell you a gun, let alone the authorities issuing a carry permit for one. I wonder how that is playing out in Colorado and Washington. IIRC there were some issues in Oregon and California about CCW permits being cross references with medical marijuana holders and the permits being revoked.

jaytkay:Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation

The 2nd amendment enthusiasts in this thread are VERY excited for a Zimmerman acquittal and ensuing race war.

It's gonna be funny when these trigger-happy wankers shoot each other in their zeal to "protect" their families.

In most circumstances I could be considered a 2nd Amendment enthusiast. I am not excited for either of these possibilities, though I expect a Zimmerman acquittal. I shall thus sidestep your brush stroke.

ThatDarkFellow:The 'Not Guilty' verdict isn't going to be anywhere near as awesome as Zimmerman suing the state and or Martin's grandmother. I'd probably go after the state, probably not much to be made off of welfare checks.

ThatDarkFellow:The 'Not Guilty' verdict isn't going to be anywhere near as awesome as Zimmerman suing the state and or Martin's grandmother. I'd probably go after the state, probably not much to be made off of welfare checks.

CliChe Guevara:gimmegimme: jaytkay: Gun "rights" people are gonna be bummed if Zimmerman is convicted.

They dream day and night of shooting some dark-hued "bad guy".

Stop being unfair to Responsible Gun Owners™.

[img.fark.net image 275x345]

I am sorry to say this is largely true.

I am a gun owner, but also one that was once involved in a very publicized self-defense shooting. Afterward, total strangers who recognized me from the news, even a random waiter in a restaurant, went on about how cool it would be to shoot someone and 'get away with it'. The idiot waiter even kept excitedly asking shiat like how it felt to actually kill someone, both giddy and then with a wistful look on his face. I was not sure which one made me want to cock punch him more.

It actually seems to be a common fantasy for a particularly offensively immature brand of loser in one of the mall ninja/itg/left behind/turner diary/rahowa type of personalities, if the morons seeking me out were any indication. at least none asked for an autograph. I even got mailed an invitation to join an exclusive shooting club with a normally several year wait list. I declined. Never had much use for gun culture/shooting sports after that, though i still keep firearms around i don't enjoy them as a sport anymore. not because i had to use them against people, just because the redneck morons at the range offend me now.

You're not having PTSD are you?I'm very glad you had your firearm to protect your life, and I'm sorry it's brought you so much grief from people who don't know what it's like to have to take a life even in self defense./still very glad you're ok

ThatDarkFellow:The 'Not Guilty' verdict isn't going to be anywhere near as awesome as Zimmerman suing the state and or Martin's grandmother. I'd probably go after the state, probably not much to be made off of welfare checks.

ChaosStar:See the bold up there? "catch" "overtake", these are two key words. Since Zimmerman wasn't running very fast, and in fact going by his breathing on the phone wasn't running at all, he wasn't "chasing" Martin.

1) One doesn't need to go fast to chase. It helps to go fast if you want to chase successfully, but you can still chase slowly.2) What, exactly was his purpose in regards to "these assholes" who "always get away"- to NOT catch this one?Even if your latter scenario was the case, which it's not, Travyon didn't have the grounds to use DEADLY FORCE

Why not? Crazy guy following you in a a car at night, you duck between buildings, he get out and follows you. You, not wanting to lead this nutter to your front door, hide. He walks past you. Phew. He's walking away. He's putting his cell phone in his pocket- wait- is that a gun? Oh boy, this guy's armed! And he's turning around and walking towards you!! He must know where you're hiding! Oh, shiat!!!

I can see that being grounds for deadly force.

which is what pounding someone's head into the pavement and trying to take their gun to use it against them is considered.

1) Pounding someones head can cause unconsciousness as well.2) You sayTrayvon wanted to get the gun to use it on Zimmerman. That's a big ASSumption.

As I've said before, the only way to be safe around an enemy with a gun is if they are unconscious, or you take the gun away. If they have a knife, meh- knock them down and step back, and (barring any knife-throwing skills), you're safely out of reach. But a guy with a gun can be knocked down, 100 feet away, have two broken legs and one broken arm, and still be a threat. It's certainly possible that Trayvon was simply trying to get the gun away from the crazy guy who was following him (Zimmerman), not to use it himself, but to... disarm the crazy guy who was following him. And when that failed, he moved to plan 'B'- knock the crazy guy unconscious.

Remember that reasonable means of retreat we have pointed out to you at least six times now? Yeah, that's kinda important, especially when the person you're trying to paint as the victim is on top of the other person pummeling them.

And (if my scenario is correct, or close to it) exactly what 'reasonable means of retreat' did Trayvon have, facing a guy holding a gun? Turn to run, and get shot in the back. His only chance was to fight. And that would explain him jumping Zimmerman.

Popcorn Johnny:jaytkay: fredklein: if Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon, there would be no fight, no death.

Normal people understand this.

Good point, if following was illegal.

i think he did a bit more than follow. don't be obtuse. if a darker member of the public followed you around in a car, then started chasing you on foot when you tried to duck them, then ran after you when you tried to run away, i doubt the terms 'following' and 'legally observing' would be the terms you used to describe that. hell, under the 'stand your ground' law you would probably claim to the right to shoot him based on the threatening behavior right there.

its all in the terminology; remember the whole black people 'loot', white people 'find'?this is no different. white people are 'observers', black people are 'threatening'. even if they are just walking home from the store.

occams razor only tells us here that you are a racist shiathead to refer to the black person as a 'gangster in training' and the non-black vigilante as the 'neighborhood watch guy' (an organization which he has clearly been shown -not- to have been affiliated with)

fredklein:ChaosStar: See the bold up there? "catch" "overtake", these are two key words. Since Zimmerman wasn't running very fast, and in fact going by his breathing on the phone wasn't running at all, he wasn't "chasing" Martin.

1) One doesn't need to go fast to chase. It helps to go fast if you want to chase successfully, but you can still chase slowly.2) What, exactly was his purpose in regards to "these assholes" who "always get away"- to NOT catch this one?

Even if your latter scenario was the case, which it's not, Travyon didn't have the grounds to use DEADLY FORCE

Why not? Crazy guy following you in a a car at night, you duck between buildings, he get out and follows you. You, not wanting to lead this nutter to your front door, hide. He walks past you. Phew. He's walking away. He's putting his cell phone in his pocket- wait- is that a gun? Oh boy, this guy's armed! And he's turning around and walking towards you!! He must know where you're hiding! Oh, shiat!!!

I can see that being grounds for deadly force.

which is what pounding someone's head into the pavement and trying to take their gun to use it against them is considered.

1) Pounding someones head can cause unconsciousness as well.2) You sayTrayvon wanted to get the gun to use it on Zimmerman. That's a big ASSumption.

As I've said before, the only way to be safe around an enemy with a gun is if they are unconscious, or you take the gun away. If they have a knife, meh- knock them down and step back, and (barring any knife-throwing skills), you're safely out of reach. But a guy with a gun can be knocked down, 100 feet away, have two broken legs and one broken arm, and still be a threat. It's certainly possible that Trayvon was simply trying to get the gun away from the crazy guy who was following him (Zimmerman), not to use it himself, but to... disarm the crazy guy who was following him. And when that failed, he moved to plan 'B'- knock the crazy guy unconscious.

Remember that reasonable means of retreat ...

The only problem is everything you just typed is speculation, not evidence or fact and by U.S. legal standards we must assume that Zimmerman is innocent unless actual evidence is brought up to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. Out of all the threads on this particular subject I have yet to see evidence which meets that criteria. Ergo, you are promoting a man be found guilty in contradiction with U.S. jurisprudence.

CliChe Guevara:Popcorn Johnny: jaytkay: fredklein: if Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon, there would be no fight, no death.

Normal people understand this.

Good point, if following was illegal.

i think he did a bit more than follow. don't be obtuse. if a darker member of the public followed you around in a car, then started chasing you on foot when you tried to duck them, then ran after you when you tried to run away, i doubt the terms 'following' and 'legally observing' would be the terms you used to describe that. hell, under the 'stand your ground' law you would probably claim to the right to shoot him based on the threatening behavior right there.

its all in the terminology; remember the whole black people 'loot', white people 'find'?this is no different. white people are 'observers', black people are 'threatening'. even if they are just walking home from the store.

So you posit that there is no possibility that the evidence as presented be evaluated without taking into account the race of the parties involved?

ChaosStar:CliChe Guevara: gimmegimme: jaytkay: Gun "rights" people are gonna be bummed if Zimmerman is convicted.

They dream day and night of shooting some dark-hued "bad guy".

Stop being unfair to Responsible Gun Owners™.

[img.fark.net image 275x345]

I am sorry to say this is largely true.

I am a gun owner, but also one that was once involved in a very publicized self-defense shooting. Afterward, total strangers who recognized me from the news, even a random waiter in a restaurant, went on about how cool it would be to shoot someone and 'get away with it'. The idiot waiter even kept excitedly asking shiat like how it felt to actually kill someone, both giddy and then with a wistful look on his face. I was not sure which one made me want to cock punch him more.

It actually seems to be a common fantasy for a particularly offensively immature brand of loser in one of the mall ninja/itg/left behind/turner diary/rahowa type of personalities, if the morons seeking me out were any indication. at least none asked for an autograph. I even got mailed an invitation to join an exclusive shooting club with a normally several year wait list. I declined. Never had much use for gun culture/shooting sports after that, though i still keep firearms around i don't enjoy them as a sport anymore. not because i had to use them against people, just because the redneck morons at the range offend me now.

You're not having PTSD are you?I'm very glad you had your firearm to protect your life, and I'm sorry it's brought you so much grief from people who don't know what it's like to have to take a life even in self defense./still very glad you're ok

A bit actually. Nothing severe, I am very lucky in that is was very mild actually, but its interesting to note that it really is very predictable in many ways. Even when you recognize the symptoms, you can't simply rationalize your way around them. You just sort of adapt. The vigilance for instance; My friends simply know not to leave me the chair with my back to the door, as silly as it is I can't fully relax sitting in one. Its not crippling or anything, I can easily pass it off in meetings and such when I need to for a while, but I do note that I gravitate toward the chair with the best view of the room whenever I can. Hard to let my guard down sometimes in noisy crowds, too. Not paranoid or even particularly worried, just a vague unease that I can't shake no matter how stupid I know it is. Kind of like that nagging feeling you can't let go of when you wonder if you left the iron on at home, or forgot to close the garage door. Better to have some quiet or some space. Its going away, but won't ever entirely I don't think.

gimmegimme:jaytkay: Gun "rights" people are gonna be bummed if Zimmerman is convicted.

They dream day and night of shooting some dark-hued "bad guy".

Stop being unfair to Responsible Gun Owners™.

I get why people have your POV but I hate generalizations like that. We're not all as crazy as you think.1-Personally I think Zimmerman should be convicted because from what I understand he followed Martin. He should have reported it and left the crime fighting to the police (if there even was a crime).2-The only thing I dream of shooting is a burglar/attacker. Oddly enough I always picture a white guy, not that that matters. Criminals come in all colors after all...

fredklein:Loaded Six String: The only problem is everything you just typed is speculation, not evidence or fact

Of course. But the speculative parts match what we do know, and are not contradicted by any of the facts.

[img.fark.net image 800x302]

And yet, if Zimmerman's testimony is not contradicted by available evidence it is the duty of any knowledgeable jury to find him not guilty. Even your speculation does not breach "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the legal threshold necessary to find a guilty verdict. At least for Murder 2. Manslaughter is a different matter.

Loaded Six String:fredklein: Loaded Six String: The only problem is everything you just typed is speculation, not evidence or fact

Of course. But the speculative parts match what we do know, and are not contradicted by any of the facts.

[img.fark.net image 800x302]

And yet, if Zimmerman's testimony is not contradicted by available evidence it is the duty of any knowledgeable jury to find him not guilty. Even your speculation does not breach "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the legal threshold necessary to find a guilty verdict. At least for Murder 2. Manslaughter is a different matter.

Loaded Six String:And yet, if Zimmerman's testimony is not contradicted by available evidence

From what he personally has said so far, his own multiply contradictory statements may do him more damage than anything else, since there is no real hard evidence of what really did occur in the alley. Who knows how that will play out.

Loaded Six String:fredklein: Loaded Six String: The only problem is everything you just typed is speculation, not evidence or fact

Of course. But the speculative parts match what we do know, and are not contradicted by any of the facts.

[img.fark.net image 800x302]

And yet, if Zimmerman's testimony is not contradicted by available evidence it is the duty of any knowledgeable jury to find him not guilty. Even your speculation does not breach "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the legal threshold necessary to find a guilty verdict. At least for Murder 2. Manslaughter is a different matter.

A clarification: the legal threshold being beyond a reasonable doubt is the same, however, it would be easier to prove manslaughter than Murder 2.

CliChe Guevara:Loaded Six String: And yet, if Zimmerman's testimony is not contradicted by available evidence

From what he personally has said so far, his own multiply contradictory statements may do him more damage than anything else, since there is no real hard evidence of what really did occur in the alley. Who knows how that will play out.

*Shrugs* I don't know, but I'll be glad when it's over, especially if there is no violent civil unrest over the deliberation.

CliChe Guevara:Loaded Six String: And yet, if Zimmerman's testimony is not contradicted by available evidence

From what he personally has said so far, his own multiply contradictory statements may do him more damage than anything else, since there is no real hard evidence of what really did occur in the alley. Who knows how that will play out.

While it's not admissible in court AFAIK, he did pass a lie detector test with "No Deception Indicated."

Oh boy, here we go. Lets hear examples of all these contradictory statements.

its not like they haven't been discussed - and covered in the news - to death. if the cognitive dissonance is so strong with you that this well documented aspect of the case hasn't registered with you at all, you won't believe quotes from me anymore than you will believe them straight from any 'lie-beral media' sources either. go do your own damn research. preferably not on conservapedia.

CliChe Guevara:its not like they haven't been discussed - and covered in the news - to death. if the cognitive dissonance is so strong with you that this well documented aspect of the case hasn't registered with you at all, you won't believe quotes from me anymore than you will believe them straight from any 'lie-beral media' sources either. go do your own damn research. preferably not on conservapedia.

I'm well aware of the statements and interviews Zimmerman gave to the police. You're talking shiat about things you know nothing about and expect us to believe what you have to say.

occams razor only tells us here that you are a racist shiathead to refer to the black person as a 'gangster in training' and the non-black vigilante as the 'neighborhood watch guy' (an organization which he has clearly been shown -not- to have been affiliated with)

So a guy living and embracing the gansta life style is not a gangster in training? The guy volunteering his time to keep his neighborhood safe is deemed a bad guy and probable assaulter, while the "troubled teen" heading down the wrong path is the good guy and probable victim here. That's a completely bizarre and illogical conclusion. Occam's razor tells me the troubled teen turned violent. End of story.

The troubled teed ran away, his murderer admitted to the 911 operator that he ran away and he had no idea where he'd gone, He obviously tracked him down, when he had no authority to and was specifically told that he shouldn't. Florida has a stand your ground law that says if you've tried everything within your power to get away from someone and they follow you, you are allowed to defend yourself with everything up to and including deadly force. Trayvon was stalked, tried to get away, was stalked some more and stood his ground. Martin murdered someone he was stalking, open and shut.